4 ms·

No, it doesn't. I think it shows precisely what's going on in every MegaCorp in the US: Woke Capitalism. Everything is calculated to maximize profit, including

No, it doesn't. I think it shows precisely what's going on in every MegaCorp in the US: Woke Capitalism. Everything is calculated to maximize profit, including campaigning, branding, and marketing to say that you're NOT all about profit. In this case, both the saying of soothing things to the people who are complaining, AND lobbying the government to make those complaints less effective in the future are in line with the real goal: maximizing the success of the company, as measured by profits. When viewed through this lens, these actions do not conflict. In fact, BOTH are REQUIRED. These only APPEAR to conflict when you think that top leadership actually REALLY cares about anything other than money, and the influence it brings.

mehrdadn 8y ago
What could a company like Google do to convince you that this isn't the case, if it truly isn't the way you imagine for that company? Because it sounds like there isn't anything.
- slickbuntu 8y ago
  There really is no other credible argument that they could give. Business must grow, if they don't they die. It's predatory no doubt, and Google certainly can't be considered an honest broker. But this dichotomy is necessary in today's hysterical environment that social media has created. It sucks.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    "Other"? What is the first credible argument they could give? You can't accuse someone of something for which you would never accept anything as evidence in their defense.
  - rexpop 8y ago
    > Business must grow, if they don't they die. Perhaps re-labeling major (and unprecedented) communication/organization platforms from "businesses" to something akin to "utilities"—or, more radically, "platform coops"—would quash such apologia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_cooperative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_cooperative
- rexpop 8y ago
  Capitulate constantly to their Workers' demands, converting their authoritarian management hierarchy into a worker-led cooperative, buying back their stock and issuing it to their users.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  Not engage in this kind of actions would be a start. Not building weapons, not lying to people...
- topynate 8y ago
  The comment you're replying to is hot-blooded, but your question has a simple answer nonetheless. Sergei Brin stands in front of the "activist employees" at an all-hands and tells them that he strongly disagrees with some of their political beliefs, and that while they're welcome to advocate for them, those beliefs will find little purchase so long as he remains president of Alphabet. But that's not how he runs that company -- which is the point.
- asdff 8y ago
  Not retaliating at workers. Not being in the business of more efficient murder. Not paying smart people a lot of money to ensure as little profit possible goes towards public use.
slickbuntu 8y ago
The Game. This sounds right on.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
Spot on. Companies know very well how to appear ethical to the public eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing is an example.

mehrdadn 8y ago

What could a company like Google do to convince you that this isn't the case, if it truly isn't the way you imagine for that company? Because it sounds like there isn't anything.

slickbuntu 8y ago
There really is no other credible argument that they could give. Business must grow, if they don't they die. It's predatory no doubt, and Google certainly can't be considered an honest broker. But this dichotomy is necessary in today's hysterical environment that social media has created. It sucks.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  "Other"? What is the first credible argument they could give? You can't accuse someone of something for which you would never accept anything as evidence in their defense.
- rexpop 8y ago
  > Business must grow, if they don't they die. Perhaps re-labeling major (and unprecedented) communication/organization platforms from "businesses" to something akin to "utilities"—or, more radically, "platform coops"—would quash such apologia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_cooperative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_cooperative
rexpop 8y ago
Capitulate constantly to their Workers' demands, converting their authoritarian management hierarchy into a worker-led cooperative, buying back their stock and issuing it to their users.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
Not engage in this kind of actions would be a start. Not building weapons, not lying to people...
topynate 8y ago
The comment you're replying to is hot-blooded, but your question has a simple answer nonetheless. Sergei Brin stands in front of the "activist employees" at an all-hands and tells them that he strongly disagrees with some of their political beliefs, and that while they're welcome to advocate for them, those beliefs will find little purchase so long as he remains president of Alphabet. But that's not how he runs that company -- which is the point.
asdff 8y ago
Not retaliating at workers. Not being in the business of more efficient murder. Not paying smart people a lot of money to ensure as little profit possible goes towards public use.

slickbuntu 8y ago

The Game. This sounds right on.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

Spot on. Companies know very well how to appear ethical to the public eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing is an example.